Some people like the features of Obamacare, they just don't like the price

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
Pollsters have a habit of asking their subjects, "Do you like policies that will accept and pay for pre-existing conditions. Yes or No?"

Naturally lots of people say, Yes.

And the pollsters take these results and use them to demand that government mandate such policies. After all, look how many people said they like them!

But if they asked something a little closer to reality, such as "Would you be willing to accept an increase in your premiums of $700/month to get a policy that covers pre-existing conditions, Yes or No?" (or whatever the additional cost would be), most of those same people would reply No.

What would the pollsters then say once those results are in?

That's why the pollsters never ask about the cost of what they are trying to make government force on people.

They merely assume government would also force people who earn more, to give up a lot more money to pay, not only for their own mandatory policies, but also the mandatory policies of those who earn less. If any civilian agency did this, and forced everyone to comply, it would be plain theft. Is it any difference when govt does it?

Such forcing is the biggest thing that killed Obamacare, since eventually people found out the hard way, what the real cost was.

Trump was heard to say he liked policies that were required to pay for people's pre-existing conditions. When will he get around to calculating how much more those policies cost for every person, and making decisions on that basis?
 
UhetgxX.gif
 
Pollsters have a habit of asking their subjects, "Do you like policies that will accept and pay for pre-existing conditions. Yes or No?"

Naturally lots of people say, Yes.

And the pollsters take these results and use them to demand that government mandate such policies. After all, look how many people said they like them!

But if they asked something a little closer to reality, such as "Would you be willing to accept an increase in your premiums of $700/month to get a policy that covers pre-existing conditions, Yes or No?" (or whatever the additional cost would be), most of those same people would reply No.

What would the pollsters then say once those results are in?

That's why the pollsters never ask about the cost of what they are trying to make government force on people.

They merely assume government would also force people who earn more, to give up a lot more money to pay, not only for their own mandatory policies, but also the mandatory policies of those who earn less. If any civilian agency did this, and forced everyone to comply, it would be plain theft. Is it any difference when govt does it?

Such forcing is the biggest thing that killed Obamacare, since eventually people found out the hard way, what the real cost was.

Trump was heard to say he liked policies that were required to pay for people's pre-existing conditions. When will he get around to calculating how much more those policies cost for every person, and making decisions on that basis?

Actually there was a poll done, that asks exactly that, they asked the questions:

Do you support universal health care for all? Yes/No
Do you support UHC, if it costs 0.5% in additional taxes? Yes/No
1%? Yes / No.
2%? Yes / No.
5%? Yes / No.
10%? Yes/ No.

90% said yes to the first question.
60% said yes to the second.
Only 10% said yes to the third.
And beyond that it was like one or two people that said yes.

Of course when you look at UHC in other countries, it would be a 20% increase in taxes at a minimum.
 
Actually there was a poll done, that asks exactly that, they asked the questions:

Do you support universal health care for all? Yes/No
Do you support UHC, if it costs 0.5% in additional taxes? Yes/No
1%? Yes / No.
2%? Yes / No.
5%? Yes / No.
10%? Yes/ No.

90% said yes to the first question.
60% said yes to the second.
Only 10% said yes to the third.
And beyond that it was like one or two people that said yes.

Of course when you look at UHC in other countries, it would be a 20% increase in taxes at a minimum.
Got a link or reference for that poll? And/or any others like it?
 
There is nothing that can be done about the price.

It is an earmarked tax.

All you can do is pay it.

Someday the whining will hopefully end.

Health care is simply expensive and vital.
 
Pollsters have a habit of asking their subjects, "Do you like policies that will accept and pay for pre-existing conditions. Yes or No?"

Naturally lots of people say, Yes.

And the pollsters take these results and use them to demand that government mandate such policies. After all, look how many people said they like them!

But if they asked something a little closer to reality, such as "Would you be willing to accept an increase in your premiums of $700/month to get a policy that covers pre-existing conditions, Yes or No?" (or whatever the additional cost would be), most of those same people would reply No.

What would the pollsters then say once those results are in?

That's why the pollsters never ask about the cost of what they are trying to make government force on people.

They merely assume government would also force people who earn more, to give up a lot more money to pay, not only for their own mandatory policies, but also the mandatory policies of those who earn less. If any civilian agency did this, and forced everyone to comply, it would be plain theft. Is it any difference when govt does it?

Such forcing is the biggest thing that killed Obamacare, since eventually people found out the hard way, what the real cost was.

Trump was heard to say he liked policies that were required to pay for people's pre-existing conditions. When will he get around to calculating how much more those policies cost for every person, and making decisions on that basis?

Yup some features are needed but the price is ridiculous.

Arizona saw it prices go up by 150%. I read that and almost passed out.

The only winners with the ACA are the people the rest of us are paying for.
 
Actually there was a poll done, that asks exactly that, they asked the questions:

Do you support universal health care for all? Yes/No
Do you support UHC, if it costs 0.5% in additional taxes? Yes/No
1%? Yes / No.
2%? Yes / No.
5%? Yes / No.
10%? Yes/ No.

90% said yes to the first question.
60% said yes to the second.
Only 10% said yes to the third.
And beyond that it was like one or two people that said yes.

Of course when you look at UHC in other countries, it would be a 20% increase in taxes at a minimum.
Got a link or reference for that poll? And/or any others like it?

I only heard of the one single survey, and unfortunately I can't back or support it. One of the reason I rarely mention it. Trust me, I kick myself for not saving that survey, or a link to it.

2007, unfortunately. I haven't been able to find it since. Believe me I've looked for numerous times. I can not find it.
If I ever do, I will save a copy, and post it EVERYWHERE.
 
Pollsters have a habit of asking their subjects, "Do you like policies that will accept and pay for pre-existing conditions. Yes or No?"

Naturally lots of people say, Yes.

And the pollsters take these results and use them to demand that government mandate such policies. After all, look how many people said they like them!

But if they asked something a little closer to reality, such as "Would you be willing to accept an increase in your premiums of $700/month to get a policy that covers pre-existing conditions, Yes or No?" (or whatever the additional cost would be), most of those same people would reply No.

What would the pollsters then say once those results are in?

That's why the pollsters never ask about the cost of what they are trying to make government force on people.

They merely assume government would also force people who earn more, to give up a lot more money to pay, not only for their own mandatory policies, but also the mandatory policies of those who earn less. If any civilian agency did this, and forced everyone to comply, it would be plain theft. Is it any difference when govt does it?

Such forcing is the biggest thing that killed Obamacare, since eventually people found out the hard way, what the real cost was.

Trump was heard to say he liked policies that were required to pay for people's pre-existing conditions. When will he get around to calculating how much more those policies cost for every person, and making decisions on that basis?

Yup some features are needed but the price is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous. Only forcing people to pay it, is ridiculous.

Insurance companies don't have money trees.

People with pre-existing conditions need large benefits paid to them, right away... and there's not "chance" involved. Every one of them need those large payments.

All insurance companies can do, is immediately shell out huge amounts of cash in all directions. And they can't just pick that money off a bush somewhere. Their only source for that money, is the premiums of their customers. The premiums have to go way up, to pay for those pre-existing conditions.

Obamacare (or any govt program that claims to cover pre-existing conditions) forces people to pay those huge payments. And worse, it forces some people to pay their own huge payments PLUS the huge payments of others.

It's about as far from "fair" or "equitable" as you can get.
 
Got a link or reference for that poll? And/or any others like it?
I only heard of the one single survey, and unfortunately I can't back or support it. One of the reason I rarely mention it. Trust me, I kick myself for not saving that survey, or a link to it.
2007, unfortunately. I haven't been able to find it since. Believe me I've looked for numerous times. I can not find it.
If I ever do, I will save a copy, and post it EVERYWHERE.
Is this it?

https://www.ebri.org/files/EBRI_Notes_11-2007.FS-2-Policy.pdf
 
I'm just glad I've never had to use that Obamacare BS.

I have excellent dental and health ins. through my employer. It costs me ~$150/mo with a $250 deductible. Work pays half of my costs on everything, inc my deductible, I have done within our hospital system.

I've seen the outrageous amounts some people are stuck paying and can only wonder how that was allowed to happen.
 
When Obamacare was being debated in Congress I said the obvious.

YOU CAN NOT COVER PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHOUT BANKRUPTING THE POLICY HOLDER OR THE INSURER OR WASHINGTON.

There is not enough money. People look at if on an individual basis but if you multiply all those terrible illnesses it's unattainable. People will die waiting in LONG ASS lines waiting for even basic care because all of the funding will be consumed on just a few of the sickest.
 
Actually, I like the features of Rolls Royce automobiles, too.

The reason I don't own one, is because of the price. That makes it completely unworkable, I will never buy a Rolls-Royce.

You can't get a RR without also having the high price.

Similarly, you can't get the "nice" features of Obamacare, without the high price... which makes it completely unworkable.
 
Got a link or reference for that poll? And/or any others like it?
I only heard of the one single survey, and unfortunately I can't back or support it. One of the reason I rarely mention it. Trust me, I kick myself for not saving that survey, or a link to it.
2007, unfortunately. I haven't been able to find it since. Believe me I've looked for numerous times. I can not find it.
If I ever do, I will save a copy, and post it EVERYWHERE.
Is this it?

https://www.ebri.org/files/EBRI_Notes_11-2007.FS-2-Policy.pdf

No, but that is fantastic. Then one I saw specifically said 1.5% and 2.5%, and went up to like 10%.

Plus the numbers willing to pay 5% more in taxes was less than 5% of the people responding. 22% is much higher, but still makes the point, because taxes in other countries is nearly double.

Most of the world can only dream of paying just 5% of their income to pay for health care.
 

So let's look at Australia.

First, if you make more than $37,000 a year, your tax rate is 32.5%
Comparatively, if you make over $37,000 a year in the US, your tax rate is 25%.

Additionally, they have a 10% VAT or sales tax on all goods, which means everything you buy is of course more expensive, especially for the poor.

Moreover, they have a 3% tax on all retirement. So you pay tax on your income, and then you pay tax again on what you save to retire.

They also have a larger fuel taxes, and corporate tax, and even a tax on non-money compensation.

All of which you will pay. Are you ready to earn a ton less income? Ready to live a lower life style?

Now that said, the Medicare tax in Australia is pretty low. 1.5%. Not bad, but it really isn't free though.

Cost to see GPs has ‘skyrocketed’

The way that medicare works in Australia, is the Medicare system pays out a flat fee. However, the doctors are free to charge whatever they need, to make a profit.

For a typical General Practitioner office visit, Medicare only pays out $50. An office visit now, can cost upwards of $110. Meaning a patient will have to pay $50, $60, sometimes $70 per visit.

Similarly, the same is true of specialists, and hospitals. While Medicare will cover a larger cost for those things, the patient still has to cover the difference, and hospitals and specialists are free to determine their own prices.

Of course the one exception is the public hospitals.... which of course have controlled prices.... and have shortages.

Nurses outraged by plan to close dozens of beds at Adelaide hospitals

When you don't pass on the costs of care, then you have to ration the care. So 55 beds are closed, even while the hospital was already treating patients in hallways because of a shortage of beds.

This is why most Australians have private insurance.

Explainer: why do Australians have private health insurance?

"As a private patient I can … choose my treating specialist and I can say I’m available on these days, how does that work for you, rather than sitting on the wait list. I mean, it costs out of pocket, but I am lucky enough to be in a position that cost isn’t a huge barrier for me."​

So here's a guy with 'free' health care from the government, and yet he buys private insurance, and goes to private doctors. Why? Because he doesn't want to sit on a waiting list for weeks, or years, and because he can now choose who he sees, and when he sees him.

This is the reality of all government run health care... higher taxes, less care, waiting lists, and shortages. The rich still get good quality care, because they pay for it. The poor, have less money to buy care, and the care they get sucks.
 

Forum List

Back
Top